Friday, August 26, 2016

"Judeo-Christian" is another false construct, not even as old as "the melting pot" or "a nation of immigrants". From Wikipedia:

History of the term
The term is used, as "Judeo Christian", at least as far back as in a letter from Alexander M'Caul dated October 17, 1821. The term in this case referred to Jewish converts to Christianity. The term is used similarly by Joseph Wolff in 1829, referring to a style of church that would keep with some Jewish traditions in order to convert Jews.

Use of the German term judenchristlich ("Jewish-Christian"), in a decidedly negative sense, can be found in the late writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, who emphasized what he saw as neglected aspects of continuity between the Jewish world view and that of Christianity. The expression appears in The Antichrist, published in 1895 and written several years earlier; a fuller development of Nietzsche's argument can be found in a prior work, On the Genealogy of Morality.

Promoting the concept of United States as a Judeo-Christian nation first became a political program in the 1940s, in response to the growth of anti-Semitism in America. The rise of Nazi anti-semitism in the 1930s led concerned Protestants, Catholics, and Jews to take steps to increase understanding and tolerance.

In this effort, precursors of the National Conference of Christians and Jews created teams consisting of a priest, a rabbi, and a minister, to run programs across the country, and fashion a more pluralistic America, no longer defined as a Christian land, but "one nurtured by three ennobling traditions: Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism....The phrase 'Judeo-Christian' entered the contemporary lexicon as the standard liberal term for the idea that Western values rest on a religious consensus that included Jews."

Anyone who is using the term "Judeo-Christian" is referencing, consciously or not, left-wing anti-Christian agitprop. There are no historical "Judeo-Christian" values; to the extent there is overlap they are Christian values.

Note that "Judeo-Christian" in its post-1940s revisionist usage is a part of the same program as the 1965 Hart-Celler Act. It was adopted specifically to redefine America and destroy the historical fact of America having been founded as a de facto Christian nation.

It is also worth noting that despite Islam being related to both Christianity and Judaism in precisely the same manner, we do not hear much talk of "Judeo-Islam" or "Islamo-Christianity", much less take seriously the idea that Americans must defer to Muslims or grant them any special status on those grounds.

To claim "Judeo-Christian" is nothing more than recognizing Christianity's roots in the Old Testament is akin to claiming that "Communism" just means people sharing with other members of their community. Moreover, to claim that Christianity is "Judaic" in that sense is to erase the other tribes of Israel; it would be 12 times more accurate to say "Hebreo-Christian", "Israeli-Christian" or "Jacobite-Christian".

Can you elucidate on a point for me, please? Is it logically necessary that acknowledging a continuity between Old Testament and New Testament is deferring to Jews?

I think I missed a step in your argument.

Orthodox Judaism has already abandoned their own scriptures, forbidding the reading of Daniel 7 because it requires a Messiah in the time of Christ and they are officially "Still Waiting".

Jewishness (as contrasted with Judaism, since they are now radically different things) now consists of pretending to be the moral arbiters of the world by virtue of being official history's biggest losers. In other words it is not a religion at all but merely a tribal affiliation having obvious political advantages.

In this context I completely agree that the term "judeo-christian" makes no sense whatsoever.

In other contexts, and with other protagonists having other intentions, I can see some sense in acknowledging the spiritual and historic continuity between the OT and the NT, albeit I would also say that BOTH are fully Christian documents.

Is it the abusive nature of the term as it was coined and is commonly used that you are advocating against, or is there more to it?

Judea-Christian means Biblical. VD's focus on groups ignores the importance of individuals. Yes most blacks vote for the totalitarians. I don't want to live near 'those' blacks (some get it). Yes most Jews vote for the totalitarian left, I don't want to live with 'that kind' either (many Jews get it).

On the other hand I live in a place that is almost all white. Guess who the criminals are here? Guess who OD's from heroin here? Guess who the trash is here? Within each ethnic group there are some who 'get it', some who add to existence. I want them as neighbors. I've come to the conclusion that the answer is spiritual/cultural. Remember WW2 Europe was white on white. East Germans were genetically the same as West Germans.

I've thought of Judeo-Christian, since it is part of the lexicon, as more of a hat-tip than anything concrete. I note that the stars on the Flag are not stars of David and the five point was used specifically to avoid any inference.

While I'm a dispensationalist (and let's not go off topic), it's clear to me that when Truman championed Israel, the dispensationalists went off into a scriptural orgasm, and started counting days yet again.

That coincides with the "Judeo-Christian" push Vox described, and I think preachers glommed on to it.

"Judeo-Christian values": Toledot Jeshu (ספר תולדות ישו) (the Jewish version of the life of Jesus).

The stories claim that Jesus (Yeshu) was an illegitimate child, and that he practiced magic and heresy, seduced women, and died a shameful death.

As the saying goes (amongst Jews), "Get two Jews together, and you'll have three opinions." (So I heard during a much earlier period of my life, when I was married to a Jewish girl and studied Jewish culture and religion.)

I've thought of Judeo-Christian, since it is part of the lexicon, as more of a hat-tip than anything concrete.

It doesn't matter how you think of it. Many people also thought of the Federal Reserve as something to enhance bank stability and the income tax as a temporary measure. That doesn't mean they were correct.

Think how distasteful it must be to Jews for them to regurgitate the Judeo-Christian propaganda, that is the weak spot. Imagine being a proud jewish person comfortable with who you are listening to some fat low T manlet like Erikson or Beck ramble on and on about Judeo-Christian one ness. And if this jewish person does not marry out I doubt their views on Christians is much different then it would have been in the 19th century.

Do the glorious people of color who happen to be Christian blather on and on about Judeo-Christian values, I hardly think so, because they know its bullshit.

I like VD's impartial presentation of the history of this phrase. The fact that we have such an imbalance in the composition of our government (an example being our Catholic/Jewish Supreme Court, when the population is majority Protestant) suggests that something is influencing events.

- Modern Talmudic Judaism is a completely different religion than the proto-Christianity of the OT saints. The former is actually descended from the man-made philosophy of the Pharisees, who were the enemies of Christ during his life.

- The people we today call "Jews" have no particular connection to the Judahites (as the word used to be translated) of the Bible, who were mostly genocided in the Roman sack of Jerusalem in AD 70 and scattered to the winds thereafter. But even if they were, it doesn't matter as the notion of "God's people" is now determined by faith in Christ, not blood. Branches were cut off, and new ones grafted in.

- The Talmud unambiguously calls Jesus the son of a whore, a magician and rebel, and claims he is now burning in a lake of shit in hell. The Jews have historically gone to great lengths to prevent the Christians they lived among from discovering these things, though by now the ship has pretty much sailed. How any Christian can claim brotherhood with people who believe such blasphemies is mind-boggling.

I don't think Daniel 9 is prohibited reading at all. It is just interpreted differently. Daniel is not considered a prophet in Judaism, but a seer. The book is in "The Writings: (Keshuvim) not "The Prophets" (Nevi'im).

I think you could reasonably describe obscure sects like the Ebionites as Judeo-Christian. You could also make a weaker argument that forms of Protestantism Judaized themselves and merit the descriptor. But really, it's just a label; I don't consider us Western although there's been a lot of cultural interpenetration over the centuries.

Yes, but it does not apply if the accepted identity of The Anointed One is considered to be Zerubbabel or the High Priest Joshua and The Anointed Leader is considered to be Onias III, for instance. This is what the commentary in my Jewish Study Bible tells me.

By this interpretation, that part has already been fufilled and does not refer to final coming of Mashiach.

we do not hear much talk of "Judeo-Islam" or "Islamo-Christianity", much less take seriously the idea that Americans must defer to Muslims or grant them any special status on those grounds.

Judeo-Christian was invented because the Jews believed they were weak and needed protection from Christians.

Islamo-Christian is not necessary because the Muslims do not think they are weak, and do not want protection from Christians (except as a temporary measure until they have sufficient numbers to impose sharia). Indeed, they emphatically reject it.

We will have to take seriously the idea that Americans must defer to Muslims or grant them any special status on those grounds if we are stupid enough to admit enough Muslims to force us to do so. (See: Muslim Mayor of London funding police task force against "online hate" http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/16/london-mayor-to-set-up-police-online-hate-crime-hub-in-partnership-with-social-media-firms/).

Thank you Vox Day! This "political neologism" (i.e., it's NOT religious!) has always bothered me, because it's (more than) a bit of Stockholm syndrome for Christians! (Oh! These idiot evangelicals blathering on about "our elder brothers in faith." ARGH! The cuckoo has invaded the nest you fools!)

(((They))) took us over and suddenly (((they))) are setting the standard for how we talk about and view the religion that was present in the Founding Principles. (And it was NOT Judaism!)

Another inserted word/phrase/concept into the zeitgeist than raises my hackles is "homeland": the U.S. was never called "the homeland" till shortly after 9/11. It was our country, our nation -- and suddenly it became "our homeland." Google Trends doesn't go back that far, but I sure heard the change... Anyone else?

On a *very* technical note, there really IS such a thing as "Judaeo-Christianity."

However, it refers to a set of religious groups which existed in the ANE around the 4th-8th centuries AD, and which were a formative influence on Islam. They essentially accepted the messiahship of Jesus Christ while rejecting His deity, as well as his real death on the cross (they're most likely the source of the Muslim "Judas replaced Jesus on the cross" doctrine).

No it doesn't. In fact, it represents the rejection of genuine Christianity. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for all who believe. When a person gets saved, they become judicially righteous in God's sight because they are now "in Christ," and they have been imputed HIS righteousness, which they participate in as their own.

Attaching a "Judeo" to that carries the implication that keeping the law is, or at least plays a role in, how someone obtains righteous standing before God. It's a complete rejection of the entire book of Galatians, as well as large swathes of other books like Romans, Ephesians, and Hebrews. "Judeo-Christian" is actually ANTI-Christian.

No one saw the Coen brother's last movie "Hail Caesar", I know, but there is at least one great scene in it. Josh Brolin plays the head of a movie studio who called together an Orthodox priest, a Catholic priest, a Protestant pastor and a Rabbi to discuss the appropriate way to portray Jesus on screen.

The Jewish religion, much like Buddhism or Shinto, etc., is a completely anachronistic religion. It served its purpose in human history and has been supplanted by a totally superior and fully true religion. The human race has no need for it anymore.

This is why it's such a bad idea to coddle these religions -- usually under the banner of "multiculturalism" -- and urge followers to believe they have something to contribute to the religious discussion. They don't. People who believe in these religions need to be brought forward into religious reality.

There are probably people out there still using rotary phones. Would any reasonable person tell such people, "Yes, this is a completely legitimate form of communication in the 21st century"?

Some Christians here are clearly hanging on to "Judeo-Christian" as an emotional comfort, despite the increasing conflict with reality (not to mention scripture). Understandable after fifty years of churchian propaganda. They will come around.

It's like decent Republicans just waking up to the alt-Right. For a while it can be hard to quit thinking "conservative" = "yay team!" (personal experience), because for fifty years it was drummed into their heads.

@40 Another inserted word/phrase/concept into the zeitgeist than raises my hackles is "homeland": the U.S. was never called "the homeland" till shortly after 9/11. It was our country, our nation -- and suddenly it became "our homeland." Google Trends doesn't go back that far, but I sure heard the change... Anyone else?

As per the dictum that even logic should eb silent in the face of experience, I note the many ethnic jews who have become Christians after reading that text and simply taking it at face value, not trying to do intellectual and historic somersaults trying to make it say something it doesn't...

Western culture pre-WW2 could be more appropriately labeled Greco-Christian.

Unfortunately, post WW2 in particular, I think you have to describe our culture as having judaized, with the stripping of ornament in art, the rabbinical textual sophistry of critical analysis, the general alienation of culture, etc.

Also worth thinking about Vox's point that the first element in a hyphenated name is typically identity, with the second being (grudging?) residence. Judeo-Christian: jewish identity, living in a Christian host.

It is also worth noting that despite Islam being related to both Christianity and Judaism in precisely the same manner, we do not hear much talk of "Judeo-Islam" or "Islamo-Christianity", much less take seriously the idea that Americans must defer to Muslims or grant them any special status on those grounds.

Yet.

It is coming, if it is not already in its early stages. There have been some rumblings from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Episcopalian Church about giving some sort of equal footing or respect to the Koran. Methodists have started down this path (seen on a recent United Methodist Church sign on my way to the gym: "The Bible and the Koran: Where They Agree"). The pope routinely gushes about the goodness of Islam.

There also was a drive some time back to add "Muslims" to "The National Conference of Christians and Jews." I don't know what came of it.

I always thought of "Judaeo-Christian" the way I thought of "Graeco-Roman." I thought the point was there was a connection, that one was seen as flowing from the other one in terms of influence and outlook on civilization, but that was not the same as being identical. Hey, what do y'all think of my theory, which is mine, that the Koran was written by Talmudic Jews for the purpose of fighting against the heresy called Christianity, and it got out of hand? My study of history tells me that Jews and Muslims got along swell and it was Christians that were the enemy of both most of the time. (For example it looks to me like that the Jews were expelled from Spain because they were considered the allies of the Moors.) That is until The State of Israel was founded in 1948, and that's when the Muslims started hating Jews and expelling them from their Muslim countries and that's also about the time when a lot of Christians decided Jews weren't so bad and maybe it was true that the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance?

Half of human behavior is genetic, so while it doesn't determine a person, it does determine a people.

I've come to the conclusion that the answer is spiritual/cultural. Remember WW2 Europe was white on white.

Never again. Deus vult!

Avalanche wrote:"homeland": the U.S. was never called "the homeland" till shortly after 9/11. It was our country, our nation -- and suddenly it became "our homeland."

Yeah, I saw the change, and I went along with it because I'm a nationalist. Now I think they were using it as persuasion to get support for the Iraq war, but that just makes them dumb on several levels. It's still actually our homeland.

Just because you worship something different doesn't change The Truth.

Jesus is the God of all. Philippians 2:10 makes that pretty damn clear.

"Christianity" is nothing more than the "Correct continuation of Judaism." Our Lord's Blessed Mother, St. Joseph, His Step-Father, Sts. Peter, Andrew, Nathaniel, John, James, Simon the Zealot, all of the First Christians had One Thing in common:

They were all Jews.

They considered themselves "Jews who had recognized the Messiah (They had.)" and they were going to "Continue forward in their Jewish-ness."

It wasn't until St. Paul came along and started bringing in non-Jews, Gentiles, into the Church that the more "strong Jews" in the Early Church started to raise a fuss, and thankfully, St. Paul's side won the debate.

It is also worth noting that despite Islam being related to both Christianity and Judaism in precisely the same manner, we do not hear much talk of "Judeo-Islam" or "Islamo-Christianity"

That's because Islam isn't really "related" to Judaism or Christianity (other than by falsely co-opting some of their history). Judaism is, however, related to Christianity in a very substantive way.

I don't disagree that this isn't a "Judeo-Christian" nation. It was founded by Christians and was intended to be Christian (an early draft of the 1st Amendment by George Mason specifically mentions the Christian religion), but there's a reason why Christians draw parallels between Christianity and Judaism but not with Islam: because there actually are parallels there to be drawn.

I didn't know that, very interesting. I wonder how that history relates to the various books "recently" (I recall "America's Prophet" aka Moses being flogged on the radio a few years ago) talking about the founding fathers and the Mosaic Law.

However, given how differently the term is used today, my first reaction is it's been embraced and extended and used against the originators, much like using "Dark Lord" mocks SJWs rather than agreeing with them. But perhaps it was just assimilated into wider culture, like "drinking the coolaid", and just lost actual underlying meaning?

Always good to know the history of the terms we use! I love asking if socialist embracing Democrats are patriotic and playing with their cognitive dissonance - if they say yes, can mock them for their national socialism; if not can mock them for their hypocrisy of not using their freedom to move elsewhere and make room for immigrants who would love to be here.

@52For a while earlier in the century the trial balloon of Abrahamic Faiths was floated, but did not seem to get too far. It surely appealed to the Kumbayah Kristians who never seem to have read any part of the Koran.

It is telling that none of the Founders used such a word. Those men were Christians and Deists mostly, well educated in the Bible and history. It never occurred to them to refer to the country as "Judeo-Christian". Cucks like Erickson don't even try to explain this even though the idolize "muh Founding Fodders!" at the same time. Cognitive dissonance much?

Oh, and don't forget Romans 11 among the other facets of truth - we gentiles supposed to be grateful we were grafted in to God's plan, even if the Jews were pruned off for a time. Part of the explicit point of Christianity is living in a way to make them jealous so they will come back to God and be grafted into the root again.

You're absolutely right, VD. I've studied the question of Judeo-Christian for years, and this is what I have concluded, too. Whenever I hear someone use the term "Judeo-Christian" I know that I'm going to feel their fingers in my wallet soon, since that seems to be the primary activity of Churchians.

"7-But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8-So they seized the son, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. 9-What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others."

I've always got a kick out of how many true-believing Christians have also always held a special place dear in their heart for Jews above other non-Christians. Why, what is so special there? I mean of all the groups, they are the closest to you I guess, yet they actively deny the one thing that is the cornerstone of your faith. At least the others can just plead ignorance. Yet you befriend Jews like they are something better. Makes no sense to me.

I'm not sure how when or under what specific historical circumstance the term "Judeo-Christian" emerged is all that relevant to how it is used in modern parlance and what that meaning is.

It's modern meaning and usage reflect the fact that American Jews and Christians share many/most of the Enlightenment values and moral beliefs that were the foundation of this country.

And they do. If you want to argue against that, that somehow the Jewish religion as it is practiced, Orthodox or not, diverges in some significant way from Christians that renders the term inaccurate in an important way, then go ahead. I think that's nonsense, but at least then you're being forthright about what you're arguing.

It should be called Hebraic-Christianty since Christianity has its roots in Hebraism - the Abrahamic and Mosaic tradition, the Ten Commandments and the Old Testament. The "Judeos" however severed any legitimate connection to this lineage when they adopted the Babylonian Talmud, which is basically an instruction manual on how to circumvent the Ten Commandments and Biblical law. This was the point of contention between the Jesus, a Hebrew of Galilee,

Christianity did not spring from Islam, nor the reverse. That is why they are not connected at all.

Christianity did spring from Judaism. It didn't replace Judaism in the sense of being a completely different way. The New Testament is a fulfillment of the Old Testament, not a completely separate item.

It has been said here, but a point that should be kept in mind is that modern Judaism is not the same thing as that prior to AD 70, before the Jewish Temple was destroyed.

Do note that the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel came together dead at first and only had life added to them later. Thus many things today are dead, but can easily be a part of the process, as future restoration comes.

Though the Messiah will only ultimately return to the Jewish people when they say "blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord" per Jesus' words.

[Rom 11:25 KJV] 25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Clearly this blindness is temporary, not permanent, yet many in these threads miss that.

The traditions of the elders that Jesus said made "the word of God of no effect" was what they wrote down after the destruction of Jerusalem. It's the Talmud. Proponents of Judeo-churchianity want us to believe that we share the Torah's values when in fact the reprobates brag about destroying it in the Talmud. Peter and Andrew were probably Torah believing hicks that we would have shared a common set of values with. Paul was a Talmudist who later repented. Talmudists like to pretend there is no difference.

The disciples were Ffisherman too, maybe we should call it Ichthyianity?

It wasn't His claim. It was God keeping His promise to David and Abraham. He was the singular seed promised to Abraham and He was the promised heir that would always be on the throne that God established under David.

"What's with all the anti-Jewish stuff lately, Vox? It's like you can't read a post without ((( ))) all over the place anymore."

VD and Ben Shapiro got into it on Twitter. I think Ben paints with too broad a brush when he trashes the "alt-Right" and falls in the category of "Right intellectuals buying into a Leftist narrative" that Denise McAllister smartly breaks down here:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/25/conservatisms-racism-isnt-think/

That said, I see no profit in trying to drive a wedge between Christian and Jewish conservatives over doctrinal disputes or terminology. I get that VD didn't like Ben accusing him of being an anti-Semite, but VD opens himself up to such sloppy charges when he goes down this road. D.GOOCH

Judaism is, however, related to Christianity in a very substantive way.

No, it is not. Judaism is the rejection of Christianity. It is more akin to Islam, in that it stems from the same Abrahamic source, but rejects the core foundation of Christianity, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Christianity did spring from Judaism.

Really? What part of the Talmud is Christian? Judaism is considerably more than the Old Testament.

What's with all the anti-Jewish stuff lately, Vox? It's like you can't read a post without ((( ))) all over the place anymore.

Who do you think is leading the social media attack on the Alt-Right? (((They))) shoot at us, we shoot right back. It's even worse on Twitter.

Judeo-churchianity seems like the more appropriate term, far more descriptive.

That said, I see no profit in trying to drive a wedge between Christian and Jewish conservatives over doctrinal disputes or terminology. I get that VD didn't like Ben accusing him of being an anti-Semite, but VD opens himself up to such sloppy charges when he goes down this road.

Congratulations for completely missing every point. I'm not a conservative. I never have been. Nor do I care about Ben accusing me of being an anti-Semite; Ben accuses almost as many people and places of anti-semitism as NK Jemisin does of racism.

The funny thing is that I am less contemptuous of US Jews than Israelis are. As they say, US Jews want to fight the Arabs to the last drop of Israeli blood. And, of course, to the last American dollar. There are a lot more commonalities between the Alt Right and the Israelis than one might think.

All those who posted regarding Judaism, Pharisees and Talmud are, in fact, ignorant of all three. First of all your own bible Says that the people are to do ALL that the Pharisees tell them to do. If THEY are wrong then take it up with your own bible. Anyone who comments regarding Talmud WITHOUT the proper instruction simply cannot comprehend the text. Talmud is nothing more than an elucidation of Torah law but written in a style that is unable to be understood by just any lay person. A person would first have to understand the construct even before any attempt to study it is even made. This is why decades are spent by a person before they can render any decision. To sum it up, many have opinions on Judaism and Talmud but have literally NO understanding of the same. They will read their "OT" and "assume" they "know" Judaism but far from it. I cannot recall the number of times I've heard it said, "This is what Jews believe" and it is like night and day in resembling the truth.

Now you adopt one more SJW policy: outlawing certain words as crimethink.

Not at all. I would absolutely encourage everyone who wishes to use it to do so. It provides me with useful information about them, just as hearing a Keynesian mention stimulating demand, a free trader talk about buggy whips, or a socialist talk about the bourgeoisie. When I hear "Judeo-Christian" used in the place of Christian, I know I'm dealing with a philosemite, a Churchian, or a Christian Zionist.

My point is that many people who have been brainwashed into using it have absolutely no idea what it means or what it is intended to accomplish. I didn't know why the term annoyed me until I took the trouble to look it up, but I was unsurprised to discover the stench of revisionist deceit.

@82That Federalist writer sees more clearly than most others, specifically she Notices that the left has been engaged in a massive outgrouping for years, and even asks the question "What is the end game?". But then she falls back onto the failed path of "remove the stigma", i.e. somehow make "conservatism" (whatever that is) legit again.

It's like the trads who want to go back to some kind of Ivanhoe style monarchy. The web of social constructions that supported "conservatism" or "feudalism" are pretty much swept away, gone. There's no way to step back into that stream, it's changed.

That's what so many Boomers and even X'rs can't get, the ground under their feet has changed in the last 20 - 25 years and they are still reacting as though Reagan is ready to run for President again.

johnc wrote:There are probably people out there still using rotary phones. Would any reasonable person tell such people, "Yes, this is a completely legitimate form of communication in the 21st century"?

I would, and I'm reasonable. However I'm also a bit psychotic and more than a bit anachronistic.

Oh goodness, we're doing the Talmud interpretation thing? The entire purpose of the book is to train professional bullshitters and it's been remarkably successful. It's left-hand path Luciferianism in a concentrated form. I'm impressed by any Jews who have retained a lick of sense because they have by far the WORST culture in recorded history.

They may all be Abrahamic religions, but kissing cousins they ain't. It's difficult to imagine religions whose adherents today could be more opposed to each other (of course, most Christians are like Vox's last dog: "what, there's a war?)

Now you adopt one more SJW policy: outlawing certain words as crimethink.

Is it "outlawing" to point out that a term is non-sensical and is being used against us?

John, of all people you should understand the power of word choice to frame a concept. Vox, as far as I can tell isn't *banning* the word, he is pointing out the observable consequences from granting its premise.

@22 It doesn't matter how you think of it. Many people also thought of the Federal Reserve as something to enhance bank stability and the income tax as a temporary measure. That doesn't mean they were correct.

Excellent analogy. I think the bait-and-switch of the Fed is actually far larger than continuing efforts to befuddle the thinking of Christians.

"Really? What part of the Talmud is Christian? Judaism is considerably more than the Old Testament."

Here Vox gets it completely correct. It is somewhat insulting to religious Jews to assume that their beliefs and practices now are identical to those of 2,000 years ago. Judaism changed radically between the first and fourth centuries AD. As an example, Jewish descent is now determined matrilineally but at the time of Jeus it was determined patrilineally (e.g. Book of Ruth).

Christianity has as much in common with Islam as it does with Judaism.

dc.sunsetsThey may all be Abrahamic religions, but kissing cousins they ain't.

I once saw a video loop from the early 2000's. An imam, a rabbi and some nondescript Prot preacher on a cramped set, and the clueless jabbering head interviewer said approximately, "But you all worship the same God, right?".

The prot preacher stuttered, the rabbi looked thoughtful but remained silent and the imam slowly shook his head "no". Definite fail.

It's like a lot of other things, do the actual reading and you find out that the MSM is stupid/lying.

I would recommend "Judaism's Strange Gods" by Hoffman and Ted Pike's video "The Other Israel" here. Particularly as a starting block for understanding the Talmud as an extension of Pharisaic tradition that Jesus condemned.

I would broaden the argument into why dispensationalism is extension of this error when it tries to validate two covenants, two kingdoms, two bodies of Christ in an effort to reunite a people holding to their rebellion despite the warning Moses gave them.

Jesus is counted as an anti-Semite and a bastard by the Pharisees/Talmudists.

@ #49 residentMoron I note the many ethnic jews who have become Christians after reading that text and simply taking it at face value...

An ethnic Jew is one of two things: a descendant of the kingdom of Judea, or oddly enough,a member of the non-Semitic, Japhethite tribe of Ashkanazim: John Kerry who is Roman Catholic is of Ashkenazi descent and is considered a Jew. The Ashkenazim are a Turkic tribe that converted to Judaism (from this we get the secondary meaning of "Jew" to the loss of the primary meaning which is a descendant of the kingdom of Judea) - Talmudism - in iirc, the seventh century.

Most Judahites do not know they are Judahites; the same goes for most Israelites.

This is part of the problem with those Christians who will not pay attention to what the Bible declares: When all of the tribes were one kingdom or considered together, they are Israel not Jews.; when Israel broke apart after Solomon, the two northern tribes became the kingdom of Israel/House of Israel; the other three tribes became the Kingdom of Judah/the house of Judah.

Genesis 48:16: Jacob gives his name and Abraham's and Isaac' upon the sons of Joseph, which means the tribe of Joseph is Israel; not upon any other tribe including the Judahites.

To call Israelites - the House of Israel - Jews is the same as calling Nate and Josh and other southrons Yankees.

Jesus wasn't mortal enemies of the Pharisees, but rather he and his Apostles, including Paul were Pharisees (Luke 13:31, Matthew 23:1-3). The Sadducees were the main impetus for getting him killed. They dominated the Sanhedrin until 70 AD, then the Pharisees won the day for preserving Jewish thought and practice and developed Rabbinic Judaism.

Jesus didn't have a problem with traditions (oral Torah) on how to keep the Torah in and of itself, but rather with traditions that caused one to break the law, or inverted lesser commands over greater ones (Matthew 23:23). The method of tithing Jesus affirms there is a tradition and not in the Torah. Also, as we can see from Matt. 23:1-3, he affirms the need of an authoritative group. His problem was with only some Pharisees.

So he probably wouldn't have a problem the parts of the Talmud that have to do with how Jews keep the Torah as long as they don't invert commands, since he himself followed such traditions in his own life, as did his Jewish disciples.

The full separation between Judaism and Christianity came later, with a formal ban of Christians from attending by synagogue leaders around ~100 AD, yet informally the separation took a few more centuries (see John Chrysostom rebuking Christians for participating in Jewish holidays with Jews).

Add on that Christianity became fully Gentile for all intents and purposes because Jewish converts wouldn't be allowed to keep the Torah.

So yes, it's possible to have a pro-Oral Tradition view from the New Testament and for later Judaism too if one thinks they are still God's chosen people, yet still affirm that Western Civilization is an exclusively Christian (Gentile) thing and not "Judeo-Christian".

This is part of the problem with those Christians who will not pay attention to what the Bible declares: When all of the tribes were one kingdom or considered together, they are Israel not Jews.; when Israel broke apart after Solomon, the two northern tribes became the kingdom of Israel/House of Israel; the other three tribes became the Kingdom of Judah/the house of Judah.

Correct. So, "Judeo-Christian" is not merely deceitful, it is factually incorrect.

Agree that this is an important post, but disagree with the overall sentiment.

Whatever its roots, the term as used today has come to mean common religious values.

I'm reminded of 1930s Father Charles Coughlin, who I do think was anti-Semitic. But in his radio show, defending against that charge, he'd say that his program was for Catholics, Christians and *religious* Jews. I'm not saying he used the term "Judeo-Christian," but the idea was definitely there even then.

The point being that we can say there's a wider circle in the Venn diagram that includes Christians and Jews, and excludes a lot of others.

Whatever its roots, the term as used today has come to mean common religious values.

That somehow, no one ever troubles to articulate. And that's not what it means, that's what the ignorati think it means. Judaism actually has considerably more in common with Islam than it does with Christianity, especially with regards to the single most important CHRISTIAN value of all, the salvific lordship of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

praetorian wrote:Now you adopt one more SJW policy: outlawing certain words as crimethink.

Is it "outlawing" to point out that a term is non-sensical and is being used against us?

John, of all people you should understand the power of word choice to frame a concept.

It's not just him, I have the same problem with ignoring the connotations of labels and focusing on meaning. Aspies don't do optics so good unless it's an accident of counterfactual reasoning, i.e. creativity.

That somehow, no one ever troubles to articulate. And that's not what it means, that's what the ignorati think it means. Judaism actually has considerably more in common with Islam than it does with Christianity, especially with regards to the single most important CHRISTIAN value of all, the salvific lordship of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

I can certainly agree with that. I recognize I shouldn't have said "religious" values. But there are still values.

And in terms of society, then and now, there is the matter of alliances, which I also recognize has its many problems.

Whatever its roots, the term as used today has come to mean common religious values.

The oft touted "common religious values" between not just Judaism and Christianity but also Islam and Christianity only exist in heavily westernized Jews and Muslims. Why? Because they've adopted those values from the Christian culture they've been living in.

Of course, one giant lesson of the last 20 years or so is that they've adopted far less of these western, Christian values than they've wanted us to believe. Hence the salience of the original post.

@111 and @117, actually it still does because Paul got his letter from the Sadducean dominated Sanhedrin before going to Damascus. It shows that he was a young zealous hot head (Acts 7:58 & Philippians 3:6). He broke rank with his fellow Pharisees. The exceptional individuals don't disprove the rule. Note too that the non-Christian and Pharisee historian Josephus says positive things about Jesus and James.

Furthermore, Christians share important beliefs with the Pharisees as opposed to the Sadducees.

As my historical points mentioned, the separation is a matter of community decisions, rather than complete theological opposition.

I'm just saying we don't have to deny the strong theological ties to be able to affirm the uniqueness and separateness of Christian civilization from Jewish civilization.

Jeez, you may as well wear a big sign around your neck saying "I'm either blind, or else I'm an idiot."

Let me clue you, bud. I'm Irish, and I was philosophically alt-right long before anybody had a name for that or knew what it was, and so were nearly all my Irish friends, and my large extended family, and so forth.

Take the goggles off, dude. As our good Icelandic friend Jonsi said, Open your eyes and seeeeeee....

"I never have been. Nor do I care about Ben accusing me of being an anti-Semite; Ben accuses almost as many people and places of anti-semitism as NK Jemisin does of racism."

OK, so I assume that's "I don't care what Ben Shapiro thinks about anything, because I don't respect Ben Shapiro's opinions" and not "I don't care if people think I'm an anti-Semite." I think you obviously care about the later, as you've taken the time to expressly deny it.

"The funny thing is that I am less contemptuous of US Jews than Israelis are. As they say, US Jews want to fight the Arabs to the last drop of Israeli blood. And, of course, to the last American dollar. There are a lot more commonalities between the Alt Right and the Israelis than one might think."

Look, I've been a fan (of your work as an author and a publisher and your rabid puppies campaign). I don't think you're an anti-Semite, because if I did, none of the previous sentence would be true. I don't, however, understand why you've gone scorched-Earth on more-than-nominal allies and done so in very personal ways (your crack to Shapiro about not being an American was just...low. And unnecessary.), to...what purpose? I don't get it. I would think that one could forthrightly argue for a flavor of Rightism that is more explicitly nationalist / populist with a different permutation on the hierarchy of rightwing policy preferences without having to treat the rest of us as apostates and posers. But your mileage may vary... D.GOOCH

@9 What does Matthew 13:52 have to do with Jesus teaching from the Old Testament? =He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.” There was no Old Testament to teach from as there was no closed canon of Jewish scripture. Christ often quoted the Septuagint but there were some two dozen different Jewish sects, they had some books in common, but there was not one universal canon.

Oh this is just too silly for words. In the American context, "anti-Semite" is a meaningless phrase, only used as a club to beat innocent people with, in order to gain power. "Hooray! We've successfully destroyed the only people who've ever been nice to us! Are we geniuses or what?"

Listen, fucko. I have Jewish colleagues, Jewish friends, Jewish business partners, Jewish ex-girlfriends, Jewish mentors and students, I have absolutely no problem with Jewish people as themselves, the same way I have no problem with Sicilians or Russians or Argentines qua ipsos.

But there are, observably, organized Jewish interests which actively promote their own interests at the expense of my own people (not necessarily with the consent of other Jewish people), and work with considerable ardor to explicitly undermine the interests of my people. To notice this blatant fact is not anti-Semitism, it's merely putting on your glasses. Grow the hell up.

The destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, was a massive systemic shock to Jews of the time. Their very identity, to say nothing of their religious practice, were intimately tied in to Temple worship. Understanding the destruction of the Temple became the single most important topic among Jews.After Titus' armies destroyed Jerusalem and killed most of the Jews in Palestine, the majority of Jews became Christians. They (rightly) saw the destruction of the Temple as God's punishment for their participation in death of Christ.Some didn't.A few (Samaritans, Karaites and a few small groups in Persia) that were not tied into Temple worship merely went on with the religion their fathers had handed on to them.Many (particularly Saducees) simply gave up religion entirely, becoming effective Atheists, or even joined their neighbors in Pagan rites.and many, particularly the Pharisees and other Urban intellectual and mercantile Jews sought to integrate the event into their understanding of God, without taking their own blame into account. They began writing commentaries that were collected in what is now called the Talmud. Over the millennia this transformed into what is today called Judaism. It bears very little relationship to even the Phariseeism of Jesus day, let alone the historic religion of Israel and Judah.

Who is the antichrist? He who denies that Christ came in the flesh.

Arians deny that when Christ came, he came in the flesh.Nestorians deny that when He came in the flesh that He was the Christ.Gnostics deny that He came at all in any physical sense.Jews and Moslems deny that He was ever the Christ.

All are antichrists. Yes even Jews. And Jehova's Witnesses for that matter.

@86 Nicholas Donin converted to Catholicism (and became a Franciscan) from Judaism. Donin translated the Talmud and informed the Church of the writings therein that referenced Jesus and Mary. This led to the Disputation of Paris in 1240 where the Rabbi's had to defend those passages, it didn't go well. The Talmud was burned by the carload in Paris. People have been studying the Talmud for nearly 800 years in the West, its contents are understood.

What you and your dedicated readers really, really want to do, is to go and check what was Heinrich Himmler's previos place of work, before he started his famous stint as a German State official.Ahahahahahah. But most of you know it already.

VD: "When I hear "Judeo-Christian" used in the place of Christian, I know I'm dealing with a philosemite, a Churchian, or a Christian Zionist."

Speaking as a gambling man, I'd bet the most likely thing you're dealing with is a person who just hasn't thought too hard, too deeply, or too long. There are a great many shallow people in the world. One reporter's opinion.

I assume that's "I don't care what Ben Shapiro thinks about anything, because I don't respect Ben Shapiro's opinions" and not "I don't care if people think I'm an anti-Semite." I think you obviously care about the later, as you've taken the time to expressly deny it.

You're wrong. There are tens of thousands of people who think I'm an anti-Semite. Maybe more. I don't care if they think that anymore than I care if they think I'm a Nazi or a conservative.

I took the time to expressly deny it because it isn't true. I've done the same for every other false accusation made against me in the past. If I was anti-Semitic, I wouldn't hesitate to say so. One's hates, like one's loves, are what they are. Hatred is a human right.

I don't, however, understand why you've gone scorched-Earth on more-than-nominal allies and done so in very personal ways (your crack to Shapiro about not being an American was just...low. And unnecessary.), to...what purpose?

It's not a crack, it's a fact. Ben is not an American. Ben is a Jew. His homeland is not America, it is Israel, which is why he has written about it non-stop for years.

Moreover, Ben is not an ally. In case it has escaped your attention, Ben has declared himself to be one of the Alt Right's antagonists. He is a self-appointed enemy.

I suggest that as part of the big fork, a complete line-by-line wiki of the entire Babylonian Talmud be posted, complete with scans of manuscripts and early printed copies. One could compare the original texts, and have a translation right there for all to see - not just in English either.

Exposure is always a good thing. Yes, the churchian cucks whose gospel is equality and god is Goldman-Sachs (or Golden Dindu) will be unlikely to accept reality even when it look at it directly. Nevertheless, it would serve to red-pill those who are starting to question the coprolite tower of lies which has been so carefully erected and maintained over the last 200-plus years.

"equality and god is Goldman-Sachs (or Golden Dindu) will be unlikely to accept reality even when it look at it directly."

Yeah, it does get pretty weird from time to time. But just to clarify: f'rinstnace, I do zany Hollywood stuff for a living, and we often do Golden Dindu stuff not because we're hypnotized, but just to shake things up from a dramaturgical point of view. It's actually a real pain in the ass, making a minority character into a real person with a lot of flaws, and not some idealized unfunny prick. (I thought Father Gabriel on The Walking Dead, a cowardly hypocritical black guy, was sort of a breakthrough.) It's the same way Astrid is a total badass, but not because people want a grrrlll badass, it's just different, that's just the way she is becuz of her backstory. Nobody blinks that Jake the Dog and Finn the Human are both dudes. But Marceline the Vampire Queen is a tragic badass in her own female way, and Princess Bubblegum is, well, ...she's Princess Bubblegum. And Peppermint Butler (who is best friends with Death!) and the Earl of Lemongrab are... well we don't have all day. It's not all about SJW politics, it's often about dramaturgical strategies.

@Frankenstein, I think that part of the point of education, this post, is to start winnowing the wheat from the chaff. As I have stated in other venues using the term "Judeo-Christian" makes you a dupe or a shill. Vox's larger audience will hopefully mean that we will have a lot less dupes to deal with and the shills will stand out with their point and shriek antics.

I don't know. I think it might be worse. The other day someone said something... Oh, no, I pay attention. *zzz* Anyway, my response was simple. Mormons (and denominations) are following Catholics, who are following Jews, and we know where they are all going. At least the leadership and probably the majority of adherents. I suppose that fits.

I don't like any of it, but there it is. Which means, yeah, you seem to be correct, and most Christian faiths accept the Judaeo-Christian part. Though the notion that it is modern, not traditional, Judaism is the clincher. If the old Jewish faith failed even more catastrophically, so... Not sure even that matters. I also suggested some time back that Jews have, for the most part, replaced progressivism with any real faith in God or gods. The rest are simply joining in.

It's a goat herd fuck fest straight to a single world religion, which is why they are trying to bring muslims in. Which will fit with their one world government. They have no idea how bad this is going to fail. They really should read the story of Babylon again. Funny thing is, I think they actually believe in those things, they just think God is on their side. The twist that must take place in minds, hearts, and souls to have that belief is incredible. Greed, lust, hate, and false loves. Akin to the pressures that make a diamond, but sought out.

I don't know how this fits in with a nation of 300+ million people, but I was raised in an Irish-Catholic community where "Judeo-Christian" simply meant, "yeah, Christian, but we don't want the Jews to feel excluded, we're cool with them." That was all it meant, simply a polite gesture.

I don't really know how it translates into the rest of the country. For us it was, Yeah, the Jewish Bible is our foundation so respect that tradition, and then the rest of the New Testament is the real Truth, but it would be a mistake to ignore the foundation. But it doesn't supplant the Christian Truth.

"It's not a crack, it's a fact. Ben is not an American. Ben is a Jew. His homeland is not America, it is Israel, which is why he has written about it non-stop for years."

According to his wiki page, Ben Shapiro was born in LA. I've seen nothing anywhere to suggest he has renounced his citizenship. Are you suggesting that, because Ben is Jewish, he can't be an American? I ask, because the way you said: "Ben is not an American. Ben is a Jew." usually implies a deductive relationship between the two facts. Much how I would say: "Frank is not a woman. He has a penis."

"Moreover, Ben is not an ally. In case it has escaped your attention, Ben has declared himself to be one of the Alt Right's antagonists. He is a self-appointed enemy."

And I think he is wrong to do so, as I said explicitly in my earlier post. It seems to me you are playing in to the negative stereotype of the alt-Right that Ben is trafficking in when you question his citizenship/nationalism on the basis of his full-throated support of Israel. I don't see those as mutually exclusive things. Are they, in your view? D.GOOCH

I suggest that as part of the big fork, a complete line-by-line wiki of the entire Babylonian Talmud be posted, complete with scans of manuscripts and early printed copies.All the hard work on that has already been done. Check it out here:

http://come-and-hear.com/navigate.html

As for "Judeo-Christian" it makes perfect sense, if you use the (((Hegelian dialectic))) as the template for analyzing the use of the term.

Thesis+Anti-Thesis = Synthesis

Christianity + Judaism = (((Churchianity)))

Christianity and Judaism are diametrically opposite. To put it plainly, it would be more accurate to describe the two as "Christ vs. Anti-Christ."

To expand on this, consider:

"The Talmud is, then, the written form of that which in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders." — Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson

"The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees." — Universal Jewish Encyclopedia

In other words, the Traditions of the Elders as declared to be the Oral Law used by the Pharisees to practice their Priestcraft to exercise economic, political and almost complete behavioral control over the people in Jesus' time, is the same source of what was to become the written Talmud.

Now look at what Jesus had to say about the "Traditions of the Elders" and his rebuke of the Pharisees. Any Christian who studies the topic closely should realize what this means.

Gooch, what's left to question about Ben's nationalism when the only one he's in favor of is Israel? The fact that there is any doubt in your mind says a lot about either your intellect or your honesty.

I suggest that as part of the big fork, a complete line-by-line wiki of the entire Babylonian Talmud be posted, complete with scans of manuscripts and early printed copies.

All the hard work on that has already been done. Check it out here:

http://come-and-hear.com/navigate.html

As for "Judeo-Christian" it makes perfect sense, if you use the Hegelian dialect as the template for analyzing the use of the term.

Thesis+Anti-Thesis = Synthesis

Christianity + Judaism = (((Churchianity)))

Christianity and Judaism are diametrically opposite. To put it plainly, it would be more accurate to describe the two as

Christ vs. Anti-Christ.

To expand on this, consider:

[i]"The Talmud is, then, the written form of that which in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders." — Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson

"The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees." — Universal Jewish Encyclopedia [/i]

In other words, the Traditions of the Elders as declared to be the Oral Law used by the Pharisees to practice their Priest craft and exercise economic and political control over the people in Jesus' time is the same source of what was to become the written Talmud.

Now look at what Jesus had to say about the "Traditions of the Elders" and his rebuke of the Pharisees. Any Christian who studies the topic closely should realize what this means.

"Now you adopt one more SJW policy: outlawing certain words as crimethink."

Mr Wright,

There's some things I've noticed about we humans:

1 we can be incredibly insightful about other people's logical lacunae while having immense difficulty merely seeing our own.

2 we have a tendency to go looking for confirmatory evidence, primary filters on full power, once we decide we don't like and/or disagree with a certain opinion.

As a friend and admirer, I see both these in your quoted comment, above. There's no benefit of the doubt once we've made up our minds. There's no more faith in good faith. Once trust is gone, the other can never win, for no matter what they do it will be ascribed to nefarious motives.

In spite of containing it's own fair share of dickheads the AltRight is not your enemy

Arthur, I'll set the personal cracks aside and answer your question. Ben clearly sees the 'nationalism' of the alt-Right as covert racism / bigotry / white supremacism. I think he's wrong about that for the reasons that McAllister lays out. Let's assume he is wrong. That doesn't mean he isn't an American, a patriot, and someone who loves his country and wants to see it survive and thrive. It just makes him wrong and misguided about the alt-Right, generally speaking. I've seen nothing that stands as evidence that Ben Shapiro is anything but a loyal, American citizen and patriot. Certainly his support for Israel does not make him any less so. Nor does his views of the alt-Right. D.GOOCH

Gooch, when he places the interests of globalists and open borders ahead of the nation of his birth that calls into question his patriotism. That he is willing to call people who want a border "racist" clears this point up abundantly. If that counts as loyalty in your book I don't want Ben or you as "allies".

(1) There already is a term that relates Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: Abrahamic religion.

(2) Jews and Christians share most of the same holy books, which makes the coupling between Judaism and Christianity closer than either to Islam. All of the writers of the New Testament were Jewish (Paul said he IS, not was, a Pharisee), and during the Millennium Jews will make up the majority of believers.

Instead of suggesting "nation of his birth" which is Narrative accepting I should have stuck with my prior thought that echoes yours. He's a patriot to his nation which de facto makes him a traitor to America.

Yes I know about Come and See and you're correct that most of the truly heavy-lifting has already been done there. Dual-citizens like Littlest Chickenhawk and his allies wouldn't be very happy if lots of Christians started to read that site and began to comprehend the essential nature of Talmudism - which is to Mohammedism as Alistair Crowley is to your local palm and tarot-card charlatan. The non-existent lobby which cannot be named would have to rely more on the counterfeit cash ginned up by the Banksters instead of tapping the clueless followers of Apostle Copeland and the like. It would be a tragedy worthy of an entire orchestra of tiny violins.

And I see we are still playing the "questioning a Jews" allegiance is always anti-Semitic game as well. Ignore your lying eyes and believe the Narrative we sell you or we call you a an anti-Semite is passe.

Then why keep bring it up and making it central to the criticism of Shapiro?

"it's that he consistently advocates policies inimical to American interests."

Look, I think a lot of people do that who still can make a definitive claim to being American patriots. If you define the world as 1) people who agree with me, the true Americans and 2) everyone else, the traitors, then you've become what the Left constantly caricatures the Right as.

But what policies specifically are you talking about that Ben Shapiro advocates? I am neither a globalist nor an open-borders supporter (though I am a free trader, which is why I do not identify as alt-Right). But I refuse to define either views, speaking generally, as inherently anti-American. Misguided, certainly. But denying their seat at the pluralist table of American politics is a bridge too far. D.GOOCH

Donald Gooch wrote:I've seen nothing that stands as evidence that Ben Shapiro is anything but a loyal, American citizen and patriot.

(((Ben))) says:

American Jews should embrace their Jewish nationhood while embracing American patriotism. The American nation includes members of every religion, and for good reason: The same moral nationalism that animates Judaism animates American patriotism. Jews must embrace Jewish values -- including group identity based on shared moral values -- in order to embrace the same American values. The American Jewish patriot must be a Jewish patriot in order to be an American patriot.

Jews have a long history of persecution. And that persecution has tested their faith in the Creator. But faith in man is far more tenuous than faith in God. For Jews, rejecting God in favor of international man is not merely a false hope -- it is a dangerous prescription for the ultimate death of Judaism and Jews individually.

Do you not see? His view of American Patriotism is a substitute Globalist paradigm, not an American one. He contradicts himself from one paragraph to another.

If you define the world as "people who agree with me" vs. "the squishes" then "squish" is just your word for "people who don't agree with me." D.GOOCH

If you define the word squishy as people who have thought patterns that are incoherent and raggedy, with a lack of intellectual rigor, with a meandering unfocused way of attempted communicaton, but an insistence on nattering on for no good reason, then that would be you.

"Do you not see? His view of American Patriotism is a substitute Globalist paradigm, not an American one. He contradicts himself from one paragraph to another.

If you can't see that, it is hopeless."

Well, sorry Lazarus, but it is hard to see that his 'nationalism' is a substitute for globalism when in the same article he is saying this:

"Nationalism, they nodded, was at the root of the problem. And the solution was dissolving their own nationalism. And so they decided to sacrifice the central tenets of Judaism in favor of a Pollyannaish internationalism.

That internationalism is the guiding belief of most American Jews. And so they endorse Barack Obama (by a 2-1 margin in some polls) despite the fact that Obama and his advisers are dangerously anti-Israel. They continue to consider concessions in the face of terrorism. And they cry out, hopefully, for the intervention of the international community.

The irony is that modern internationalism – not modern nationalism – is the greatest current threat to Jews worldwide. The United Nations, which presumably respects the rights of all nations equally, is an anti-Israel tool wielded by Muslim countries. The European Union has pressed Israel to cave to Arab terrorism. And Barack Obama, internationalist, will stand alongside the United Nations and the European Union."

A "globalist" who champions nationalism and decries internationalism and the United Nations? You're right, I'm not seeing it.

His article is directed at the secular, Leftist Jew. It is an analysis of why many Jews have rejected nationalism as per se bad and argues forthrightly that nationalism can be a good thing. And he cites explicitly American nationalism.

I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly is the problem with that. D.GOOCH

Donald Gooch wrote:But what policies specifically are you talking about that Ben Shapiro advocates?

How about his article in which he dreams of a Netanyhu American presidency.

How about explicitly agitating for wars in which American soldiers, and ONLY American soldiers, die for the glory of Israel.

How about demanding open borders and free trade to the detriment of American workers?

How about every other stereotypical Jewish tell of, not divided loyalties, but rather loyalty ONLY to Israel.

Now (((Little Ben))) may honestly believe that what's good for Israel is somehow, magically, good for the USA.

So what?

Now (((you))) probably can't see the tells in his writings because they are the same stances (((you))) would take. That's because you are more loyal to something else, perhaps an ideology, perhaps another tribe, than to the American nation.

residentMoron wrote:In spite of containing it's own fair share of dickheads the AltRight is not your enemy

I agree as both a dickhead and a fan. Really enjoying Orphans of Chaos from the library, and just bought a used hardcover of the next one. (Trying to keep up the Tor boycott without depriving myself of awesomesauce.)

"How about his article in which he dreams of a Netanyhu American presidency."

Link?

"How about explicitly agitating for wars in which American soldiers, and ONLY American soldiers, die for the glory of Israel."

Please give me the quote where he calls for wars where only American soldiers die for the glory of Israel.

"How about demanding open borders and free trade to the detriment of American workers?"

Free trade is not to the detriment of American workers (who are also American consumers). But I'd be happy to see a quote from Ben calling for open borders. Note, I'm not agreeing with your frame that says calling for open borders is inherently un-American. There are plenty of principled libertarians (who I strongly disagree with) who argue for, essentially, open borders. I agree with alt-Right thinkers who suggest this view pays insufficient attention to the importance of culture, and I agree with Milton Friedman who argued that open borders and a state welfare system should not coexist. But the answer to these views is to argue persuasively that they're wrong - not to ridiculously label them as anti-American and or traitors.

"How about every other stereotypical Jewish tell of, not divided loyalties, but rather loyalty ONLY to Israel."

Like who? You do realize most secular Leftists, including the Jewish secular Leftists, are either expressly or implicitly anti-Israel?

The dual-loyalty smear, with no factual basis for it, is exactly why many jump to the Anti-Semitism conclusion. And you invite it.

"Now (((Little Ben))) may honestly believe that what's good for Israel is somehow, magically, good for the USA."

Explain to me how what's bad for Israel is, somehow, magically, good for the USA.

"So what?"

So, Israel is the only liberal, democratic, bastion of Western values in the Middle East. What's not to like?

"Now (((you))) probably can't see the tells in his writings because..."

Because they are the invention of your fevered imagination, rather than his actual statements and beliefs?

"...they are the same stances (((you))) would take. That's because you are more loyal to something else, perhaps an ideology, perhaps another tribe, than to the American nation."

So now you're questioning my loyalty to America, and you don't have any thing from me about Israel prior to this post. Hmmm....

I have to admit, I missed the first time through that you were accusing me of being a Jew (not that there's anything wrong with that! - reference). Anyway, buddy, you're making this too easy. It would be easy to run with "ah ha! see! anti-Semite!" But despite that's exactly the conclusion you invite, I will persist in the view that alt-Right ne anti-Semitism/racism/bigotry...despite your persuasive efforts to the contrary. D.GOOCH

(((Gooch))), you are a useless fuck. You are not alt-Right, you are instead a tone policeman, here demanding that we justify our rejection of a useless (((fucktard))) who explicitly hates us. You are not one of us. Indeed you are not even American in loyalty. You have more loyalty to (((Little Ben))) than to Americans.

"Well, you are one slithery son of a bitch, Gooch. Not once did I see the term "American Nationalism".

Which of course is the whole fucking point."

The whole point, my friend, was to argue that secular Jews should embrace their religious/ethnic identity, and that nationalism - American and Israeli - is not per se-evil (i.e. fascism/Hitlerism in another form).

Or to put it simply - he wasn't talking to you. The fact is, the article read it in its context does not explicitly or implicitly argue against American nationalism. In fact, it clearly argues the opposite. D.GOOCH

"(((Gooch))), you are a useless fuck. You are not alt-Right, you are instead a tone policeman, here demanding that we justify our rejection of a useless (((fucktard))) who explicitly hates us. You are not one of us. Indeed you are not even American in loyalty. You have more loyalty to (((Little Ben))) than to Americans.

Depart in peace, (((shithead))). Just depart."

I'm not alt-Right? How did you figure that out? Maybe when I said explicitly, I'm not alt-Right?

I'm sorry you find providing persuasive argument and evidence to justify your beliefs/positions so vexing. Luckily, you are not the arbiter of loyalty to America. I suspect I was defending America, American values, and taking the battle to the Left when you were in diapers. But you go ahead and keep behaving exactly like the Left says the Right does. That'll show em. Oh, and I'm not going anywhere. I'm not afraid of debate, I've been called worse than you can conjure by Leftists for longer than there's been an internet, and I'm certainly not going to cut and run now. D.GOOCH

"no, a Jew who champions 'nationalism' and ethnic and religious purity for Israel while at the exact same time demanding a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious policy for the United States."

He didn't argue for ethnic and religious purity for Israel.

I can't speak for Ben, but I have no problem with America being multi-ethnic, multi-racial, and multi-religious. America is an affirmative ethos - you can adopt our principles and belief systems coming from any background. That's the beauty of it.

"do you like Theodore Roosevelt?"

No. Well, I don't hate everything about Teddy. But his progressivism is a real black mark.

As for the value of Western culture and value-system, of which Teddy was a fan, well, join the club. Me too. D.GOOCH

Donald Gooch wrote:I have to admit, I missed the first time through that you were accusing me of being a Jew (not that there's anything wrong with that! - reference).

I like a lot of what you say and I think you make some good points, but I was very confused by this statement, in the sense of who "the rest of us" are:

Donald Gooch wrote:I would think that one could forthrightly argue for a flavor of Rightism that is more explicitly nationalist / populist with a different permutation on the hierarchy of rightwing policy preferences without having to treat the rest of us as apostates and posers.

"I like a lot of what you say and I think you make some good points, but I was very confused by this statement, in the sense of who "the rest of us" are:"

"The rest of us" here refers to the rest of the American Right which is not alt-Right. FYI, I'm Roman Catholic - not Jewish.

Anyway, I'll take this opportunity to voice something that's been bugging me - and its a fundamental problem in my mind. In VD's recent arguments he paints with a very broad brush (from Buckley to Jeb Bush) arguing that most of the tenets of American conservatism (Kirkian conservatism, Buckleyism, etc. the Constitutionalist, small government, etc. opposition to the federal behemoth and the Left) aren't worth much, mostly because they have failed as weapons against the Left (at least that's my read).

But why? Why have these movements failed? Well, mostly we've failed to garner enough popular support to gain control of the mechanisms of government and implement our policy preferences. But the alt-Right seems to be mostly concerned with excising every *other* version of Rightism out there. And as much as VD and others want to believe that alt-Right is massively popular, in my view, we are taking a small piece of the pie, lamenting its failures because it is small, and then working to make it -smaller- as some kind of solution to the problem. Anyway, that seems...counterproductive. D.GOOCH

If you define the world as "people who agree with me" vs. "the squishes" then "squish" is just your word for "people who don't agree with me."

Meanwhile you are playing an old fashioned game of Kafkatrap (pin the swastika) on the anti-Semite. Anyone who isn't a Globalist is somehow (((problematic))) and making tonal miscalculations in picking their allies. Not my first rodeo, squish.

And as far as easy, you still haven't given a single good reason that the Alt-right should welcome Shapiro into its loving embrace. That was the miscalculation we made, right? Give me a single point of ideology we hold in common? You might want to study up on the alt-right and how it differs from cuckservatism before you keep digging this hole though. There is a reason we aren't getting along, and it is a good one.

I know why not go on Twitter and convince Shapiro that he is making a tactical mistake by shivving America and the alt-right every chance he gets down to write something?

I can't speak for Ben, but I have no problem with America being multi-ethnic, multi-racial, and multi-religious. America is an affirmative ethos - you can adopt our principles and belief systems coming from any background. That's the beauty of it.

No, that's the squishy idiocy of it.

"You can be anything at all you want and still identify with us.....bwahaha"

""You can be anything at all you want and still identify with us.....bwahaha"

Strange, VD made it clear that individuals of any background could be American / adopt Western values (aggregate is a different story for VD). I guess you don't agree with him.

But setting your own apostasy aside, yes you can *be* from any country, *be* any color, and *be* from any ethnicity / cultural background and choose to become an American and adopt Western values. To contend otherwise is to deny individual autonomy. And to do that is a fundamental rejection of the foundation of the Western ethos. Hmmm. D.GOOCH

It seems to me you are playing in to the negative stereotype of the alt-Right that Ben is trafficking in when you question his citizenship/nationalism on the basis of his full-throated support of Israel. I don't see those as mutually exclusive things. Are they, in your view?

Arbitrarily ruling out questioning a Jew's allegiance is the oldest ratfuck in that book. At this point it's just bad rhetoric and an obvious troll.

uh huh. isn't that interesting? just like Buckley, a Roman Catholic in a Protestant nation demanding a melting pot.

also a Roman Catholic who would rather attack others on the Right ... when they are being attacked by supposed "Righters". i mean, have you missed that entire thing where Shapiro demanded that people be fired if they dared to not agree with everything Israel was doing?

huh.

i think Buckley established this pattern of behavior when he declared the Birchers "unacceptable".

even though history has since demonstrated that the John Birch Society was EXACTLY correct in almost all of their accusations.

with the Venona documents having been revealed, America needs to have a serious conversation about FDR being re-assessed as one of the worst American presidents ever. and the Right needs to start asking serious questions about why Buckley was on the CIA payroll ... the same as Stanley Ann Dunham and Gloria Steinem.

A kafkatrap is where denial of guilt is used as proof of guilt. It is normal for a show trial, so it's very much an SJW thing, so we're sensitive to hints of it. And you were apparently saying something along the lines that to define anti-Americanism is to be anti-American, which is pure sophistry.